Why are you unable to make a defensible causal claim based
on an observed relationship between two variables?
The inability to
make a defensible causal claim based on an observed relationship between two
variables is because the two variables do not necessarily have a direct
correlational effect upon one another.
This type of
argumentation can be classified as one that is fallacious. This error in
reasoning has been known as a syllogism in the field of philosophy. In order
for the argument to be true, then the premise of the entire argument must be
true as well.
Take into
account the example of the “stereotype effect” that was given in the text. They
briefly describe this “stereotype effect” to have an impact on a certain group
that you are akin to based on a particular situation that you may fall into and
how you may behave because of it.
One example that
they had used was one that, until now, is difficult to understand. A particular
study was conducted on individuals who were scheduled to take the Graduate
Record Exam. They described a situation in which one particular group of
individuals did not score well. After publicizing this information, the
targeted group that they spoke of – the African American group, did not do well
whereas the African Americans who had not been given any data on the success or
failure rate of their cohorts performed where they should have performed
normally.
A group of
social scientists called the Behaviorists, have strictly opposed how one factor
can be related to another factor. This phenomena would be “impossible to
observe objectively” and thus did not make a considerable impact on the field
of statistics.
